Eviction Battle of 40 Years: Supreme Court Restores Landlord’s Victory in Property Alteration Dispute

For over four decades, a landlord fought a legal battle to reclaim his property after his tenants made unauthorized structural alterations. The Supreme Court, in the case of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi & Ors., finally ruled in favor of the landlord, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, which had overturned the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. This case highlights the legal principles governing property alterations in rental agreements and the importance of respecting the factual findings of lower courts.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to 1974, when landlord Damodar Lal filed Civil Regular Suit No. 191 of 1974 before the Munsiff Court, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, seeking eviction of his tenants on the grounds of unauthorized construction and material alteration of the rented premises. The suit claimed that the tenants had violated the terms of the rental agreement by making permanent changes to the property without the landlord’s consent.

Findings of the Trial Court

The Munsiff Court framed the following key issue for determination:

“Whether the tenant has carried out permanent construction on the plot thereby causing a permanent change in the identity of the plot against the terms of the rent agreement?”

After analyzing the evidence presented by both parties, including testimonies of witnesses, the Trial Court found that:

• The rented premises were originally an empty plot.
• The tenants later constructed walls, installed sheets, and converted the plot into a shop and godown.
• The structural changes were made without the landlord’s permission.

Based on these findings, the Trial Court ruled in favor of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the tenants.

First Appeal Before the Additional District Judge

Dissatisfied with the Trial Court’s decision, the tenants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge-I, Bhilwara, in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1999 (originally filed in 1990 before the District Judge). After re-examining the evidence, the First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision and concluded:

“In my opinion, the evidence presented before the subordinate court has been properly analyzed. The appellant-tenant has not been able to present any evidence to show that the consent of the landlord had been taken before making structural changes.”

Thus, the First Appellate Court dismissed the tenants’ appeal and affirmed the eviction order.

Second Appeal Before the Rajasthan High Court

The tenants then pursued the matter in the Rajasthan High Court through Second Appeal No. 109 of 2000. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

• Whether the lower courts erred in granting an eviction decree based on material alteration while ignoring relevant considerations?
• Whether an adverse inference should have been drawn against the landlord for not appearing as a witness?

The High Court ruled in favor of the tenants, holding that the finding of structural alteration was untrustworthy in the absence of the landlord’s personal testimony. The court also held that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the landlord for not testifying, and thus, the eviction order was set aside.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The landlord, aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that:

• The High Court had interfered with the concurrent factual findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
• The High Court erred in holding that the landlord’s non-appearance as a witness invalidated the factual findings.
• Structural alteration could be proved by other witnesses and did not require the personal testimony of the landlord.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Kurian Joseph, reaffirmed the principle that factual findings by lower courts should not be interfered with unless they are perverse. The court held:

“The first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court unless the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse.”

Relying on previous rulings, including Krishnan v. Backiam and Gurvachan Kaur v. Salikram, the Supreme Court emphasized that a factual determination by lower courts should only be overturned if it is based on a complete misreading of evidence or is wholly perverse.

Addressing the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court stated:

“Material alteration of a property is not a fact confined to the exclusive knowledge of the owner. It is a matter of evidence, be it from the owner himself or any other witness speaking on behalf of the plaintiff who is conversant with the facts and the situation.”

The court further held that even the tenants’ witnesses had partially admitted to making structural changes, reinforcing the lower courts’ findings. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering in a factual matter and overturned its judgment.

Relief Granted to the Landlord

The Supreme Court restored the eviction order but allowed the tenants some time to vacate the premises, considering their furniture and timber business. The court directed:

• The tenants were granted time until 31st March 2017 to vacate.
• They were required to pay occupation charges of Rs. 10,000 per month.
• In case of default, the eviction decree would be executable immediately.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The First Appellate Court is the final court for factual determinations, and the High Court cannot interfere unless there is perversity in findings.
• Structural alterations violating a rental agreement justify eviction.
• Material alteration can be proved through witness testimony and does not require the landlord’s personal appearance.
• Courts should avoid interfering in factual findings unless they are completely unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi is a landmark decision reaffirming the legal position that second appellate courts should not interfere in factual findings unless there is an evident perversity. The decision highlights the importance of honoring rental agreements and protecting landlords from unauthorized structural modifications by tenants. By restoring the eviction order, the Supreme Court ensured that the landlord finally received justice after a legal battle spanning over 40 years.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Damodar Lal vs Sohan Devi & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-01-2016.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by T.S. Thakur
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category